|
|
|
|
|
|
by primeradical
1285 days ago
|
|
|
The debate is over Colorado law that, according to the article, "bars businesses open to the public from denying goods or services to people because of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion and certain other characteristics." I understand wanting to make the distinction between objectionable behavior and the intrinsic characteristics of clients. But that's not a distinction the Colorado law considers. And if stuck down, SCOTUS could establish that there would be nothing baring a business to refuse service to LGBTQIA+ dog walkers. |
|
|
> Smith explains that she decides whether to take on a commission based on the message that the work will convey, rather than the person requesting it. This means, she says, that she would “happily” design graphics for an LGBTQ customer who runs an animal shelter. But she will not take on commissions that would be inconsistent with her Christian beliefs – including, she says, by promoting same-sex marriage – because a custom wedding website would “express approval of the couple’s marriage.”
> Smith warns that allowing the 10th Circuit’s ruling to stand would mean that artists will be required to engage in speech that violates their conscience. Calligraphers who support abortion rights can be compelled to create flyers for anti-abortion activists, she says, and musicians who are atheists can be required to perform at religious ceremonies.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/12/colorado-web-designers-fi...